<p>Do you guys think private colleges are any better than state colleges? I plan to apply to every Ivy League in the country for the fun of it but most likely I am going to UCLA or USC since it's close to home.</p>
<p>For what? Do you know what you want to do after college? For IB or some similar niche areas some specific colleges might be better. For engineering or premed (among many other things), no. But other people will have their own opinions.</p>
<p>I hope you are joking. You do realize there is a cost to applications and a time commitment in terms of supplement, no? Also, schools like Yale pretty much require an interview, so is it worth your time?</p>
<p>Look deeper into colleges and you will be much better off. And no, to answer your question, private colleges are not necessarily better than public ones, especially if you are in state (academically and financially). With schools such as the UCs at your disposal, this definitely holds true for you.</p>
<p>Unless you want a LAC experience. Few states have public LACs at the quality of a private LAC. If you are comparing research universities, research the schools. They are very different. If you’re going to apply to every Ivy just for the fun of it, all you will have done is make their acceptance rates look slightly better and be a few hundred dollars (and many hours) poorer.</p>
<p>No, private colleges are not any better than public.</p>
<p>I attended a private college (Duke) for undergrad and am at UCLA for graduate school. The question of whether one type is “better” depends on how you look at things. </p>
<p>A public university like UCLA has many top-notch professors and resources, including cutting edge research, extensive library collections, and courses in every area of study you could imagine. The student body is also very diverse in all but geographic origin. </p>
<p>Undergraduate focus, however, can be pretty iffy. With a large school like UCLA, administrative red tape can be a nightmare, and advising is extremely hit or miss. The writing center is almost always overbooked when students need it the most (unfortunate because I send many of my students there), career and fellowship advising is pretty lackluster (I recently went through the Fulbright process and thankfully received excellent counseling from my undergrad alma mater), and the attention paid to undergraduates is highly variable from one department to the next. Looking only at my own field, USC is no match for UCLA at the graduate level, but its undergraduates are doing much more impressive research than the undergraduates here at UCLA due to USC’s superior funding and closer attention to undergraduates. Whether this is a general trend with the two universities, I can’t (and won’t) say. </p>
<p>That’s not to say that private universities are necessarily better; they’re not. Many students here work hard, track down research opportunities and internships, and get great job offers or grad acceptances. At a large, research-intensive public university, however, you sometimes have to be a great deal more proactive than at smaller or wealthier schools to make the most of the available resources. </p>
<p>Yep, for individualized attention at a big public, you may want to consider honors programs (though you’d have to research the quality of each of those as well).</p>
<p>OP, would you prefer to hear yes or no? this is a ridiculous question that’s been addressed many times on CC already. </p>
<p>A better question is whether or not UCLA is a better school than USC or Amherst for what you want from a college.</p>
<p>Public vs private doesn’t matter although almost all of the very best schools are private. What makes the difference is the quality of the students and faculty.</p>
<p>How can one make such a claim as “what makes the difference [presumably between public and private] is the quality of the students and faculty”? Have you any support for the claim that the quality of the students and faculty is better at either public or private schools? would that be “better at all publics or all privates”?</p>
<p>And how do you make this claim after saying “public vs private doesn’t matter”? </p>
<p>I’m confused.</p>
<p>One way to think about this question is to consider how it works in general. In other words, are private things necessarily better than public ones. First you may want to match on important variables like size. Is public or private transportation better? Are public or private high schools better? And better for what should be considered. Matched for size, the elite private universities probably provide a better experience for most students than a same sized public one. But should narrow even more. A flagship university probably provides a better experience for most students than a university that is not a flagship. A state that pours all its resources into one flagship will probably create a better experience for their students than a state that has 62 campuses and reproduces an English, History, etc department in each. So, you have to ask more than just public vs private.</p>
<p>
Now you understand how the 1% amuse themselves ;-)</p>
<p>OP just started SAT prep and is likely a rising junior. They probably have no schools they are seriously considering.</p>